| mii-gamer said: I think you missed the point. A revolution can happen in the popularization of something. Halo sparked the popularization of console online shooters, before Halo most were single player affairs with local multiplayer and online experiences were limited to mostly pc. Halo was the firt step in moving the consoles into the online space. Motion controls existed before Wii Sports, but its commercials success has ingrained motion controls in the development of many games in the last 5-8 years and not to mention it expanded the gaming landscape beyong the enthusiastic. Before Wii Sports motion gaming was almost non-existant. Honestly, I don't see how you can argue that these two games aren't "revolutionary". |
Actually, a revolution is something that causes a fundamental change, since the whole point of it is to change the status quo of doing things. Halo brought PC style shooters to consoles, but they didn't necessarily copy Halo's style of doing things. Uncharteds style has been copied in numerous ways. Same thing with god of war....and if you don't believe me look at Star Wars the force unleashed and Dantes Inferno which were both successful hack n slashes in their own right. Assassins Creed was revolutionary...because without it we wouldn't have the batman arkham franchise nor Shadows of Mordor. What people in these convos need to separate is innovative and popular from revolutionary. They were revolutionary for the sandbox genre ontop of the revolution Grand Theft Auto 3 created after Super Mario 64. Super Mario 64 was the revolution for open world games on a console. Final Fantasy 7 was revolutionary for how JRPG's looked on consoles when games made the jump from 2D to 3D.
Super Mario galaxy has the most votes, but based on the definition of revolutionary, it isn't. No one has followed its lead. Doesn't stop it from being an innovative or popular game, but those things do not always lineup with revolutionary.
